You responded by saying that you found the link to Hunter’s statement and ‘posted about it above’. I have not found your ‘posting about it above’ nor have I found your answer to my specific question about whether Hunter should be pillored for his ‘fact’ statement ahead of a complete investigation’, as Murtha has been already thoroughly pillored.

Here are some of the responses to Murtha’s statement: ‘already tried and sentenced the Marines’, ’spewing forth ahead of the investigation’, ‘completely out of line’, ‘undermined military morale’, ’saying outright that these atrocities happened’, ’spreading disinformation’, ‘no honor whatsoever’, ‘a traitor, plain and simple’, ‘put Americans at risk’, ‘a saboteur’, ‘a gaseous blowhard’, ‘blathering incorrect information’, ‘a partisan hack’, ’shoddy political gain-minded’, ’should resign his post, and if refuses, should be removed for cause’, ’should keep his mouth shut’, ‘lacks the sense to keep his mouth shut’, ’should have rotten tomatoes thrown at him’, ‘a jerk’. Which of these responses should also be applied to Duncan Hunter for his statement?

All I have seen since I posted my question is a segue into a discussion of troop levels and the potential relevance of troop levels to the pressures felt by troops serving in Iraq. There is the stronger ‘in cold blood’ statement by Murtha, which Hunter’s statements infer by his very serious decision to investigate the investigations.

I hope you will specifically answer my question. Should Hunter be pillored because he, like Murtha, has made a ‘flat statement passing judgement’? This is important, I think. If a different standard is applied to Hunter, then perhaps the pilloring of Murtha will [and should] be dismissed as ‘a partisan hack job’. The bravery of our soldiers deserves to be matched by the bravery of honest discourse at home.

But it’s a handy little thing for the anti-war types to scream about.

I do agree that “pressumed innocent” is a very important, and basic right, but I also think that it should apply to everyone, not only to the “selected few”.

And while Murtha was not entirely fair, everyone knows that if not brought to the public, the whole thing would be swept under the rug, so to say, without any consequences.

After all, as a US soldier said “they were only iraquies”.

My 0.2$

According to the WAPO, Hunter just said, “Forthcoming military investigations into alleged war crimes in Iraq WILL SHOW (emphasis mine) that a squad of U.S. Marines killed about 24 Iraqi civilians, including women and children, while on a patrol in Haditha in November – a higher number than first believed – and then gave inaccurate reports on the incident to their commanders.” The WAPO article also reported that Hunter’s committee will be holding oversight hearings on the investigations into the incident ‘to ensure that they are undertaken by the military with integrity.’

Gaius, I would appreciate your thoughts about Hunter making such a statement…….should Duncan Hunter also be pillored?